Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
Pretty far afield from the point I was making.
There's a difference between rebooting an existing work where you reimagine the same story told a different way, and reviving an existing work that already has a bunch of storylines that never got told.
Rebooting Casablanca, or The Godfather, is dumb because the entire story has been told and told pretty darn well.
Reviving Sherlock, or Fletch, or heck The Avengers [you ARE aware that there was an Avengers before the Avengers of today, right?], in order to realize a catalog of stories is different.
It can still go wrong, as can any translation from page to screen, but it's still different.
How did you enjoy the Coen's remake of True Grit?
That seems to fall into the category you are describing. [Reply]
Originally Posted by WhiteWhale:
How did you enjoy the Coen's remake of True Grit?
That seems to fall into the category you are describing.
You know I love everything Coen.
Coen's usually do well because they put a compelling signature stamp on everything they do.
At worst, I'd call their True Grit superfluous, or unnecessary. But it's well made and not some wild reimagining, so it's not a debacle. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
You know I love everything Coen.
Coen's usually do well because they put a compelling signature stamp on everything they do.
At worst, I'd call their True Grit superfluous, or unnecessary. But it's well made and not some wild reimagining, so it's not a debacle.
Frankly, I thought it was massively superior to the original. Better performances from better actors all the way around. Hailee Steinfeld in particular was amazing. One of the best child actor performances ever.
The original True Grit isn't a bad movie, but I can think of a lot of John Wayne movies that I like better. The Oscar he won was more of a lifetime achievement award than anything else. It's one of those classic movies that just didn't live up to the hype. I feel the same way about African Queen; yeah, it's okay, but what's the big deal? [Reply]
Speaking of horrible remakes, did anyone actually watch the female remake of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels? From the reviews it was apparently as awful as it seemed it would be. [Reply]
I'm not sure how to solve this problem. We can blame the studios, but as long as people are willing to shell out ridiculous amounts of dollars to see mediocre remakes (see: all the live-action Disney remakes...) and won't go into theaters for anything new, challenging or unfamiliar, the only shit that's ever going to get bankrolled is bullshit like this. Because they have a pretty good idea that all the people who saw and loved movies in the 80s and 90s are now grownups and likely to see a remake out of nostalgia, and if they won't, their kids probably will, because they've heard about how awesome it is all of their lives. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Frazod:
Speaking of horrible remakes, did anyone actually watch the female remake of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels? From the reviews it was apparently as awful as it seemed it would be.
Who’s up for a remake of Charlie’s Angels with 3 buffed up gay dudes in the title roles? Can I get a show of hands? Maybe Jaclyn Smith can play the Bosley role. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Frazod:
Frankly, I thought it was massively superior to the original. Better performances from better actors all the way around. Hailee Steinfeld in particular was amazing. One of the best child actor performances ever.
The original True Grit isn't a bad movie, but I can think of a lot of John Wayne movies that I like better. The Oscar he won was more of a lifetime achievement award than anything else. It's one of those classic movies that just didn't live up to the hype. I feel the same way about African Queen; yeah, it's okay, but what's the big deal?
I tried to be evenhanded, because I can truly see potential in both sides.
If someone had a lot of affection for the original, I can see them thinking that the Coen remake was superfluous, even if it was well made.
If someone was less than enamored of the original, I can see them applauding the Coen's doing a superior job.
And I . . . sort of . . . fall in the middle. I think both were good, and when I saw the remake I had long had lived with the experience of the original. But the Coen version was so well made, if I had seen it first, I probably wouldn't think as highly of the original. [Reply]
Originally Posted by keg in kc:
I'm not sure how to solve this problem. We can blame the studios, but as long as people are willing to shell out ridiculous amounts of dollars to see mediocre remakes (see: all the live-action Disney remakes...) and won't go into theaters for anything new, challenging or unfamiliar, the only shit that's ever going to get bankrolled is bullshit like this. Because they have a pretty good idea that all the people who saw and loved movies in the 80s and 90s are now grownups and likely to see a remake out of nostalgia, and if they won't, their kids probably will, because they've heard about how awesome it is all of their lives.
Its interesting that the Dumbo remake sorta flopped and the Aladdin and Lion King remakes made huge money.
Most 40 and unders have little to no attachment to Dumbo. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
Pretty far afield from the point I was making.
There's a difference between rebooting an existing work where you reimagine the same story told a different way, and reviving an existing work that already has a bunch of storylines that never got told.
Rebooting Casablanca, or The Godfather, is dumb because the entire story has been told and told pretty darn well.
Reviving Sherlock, or Fletch, or heck The Avengers [you ARE aware that there was an Avengers before the Avengers of today, right?], in order to realize a catalog of stories is different.
It can still go wrong, as can any translation from page to screen, but it's still different.
If, and only if, there was a terrific script and a few great actors with a talented director/producer combo that all lined up to do a movie about Rick and Capt. Renault having ridiculous adventures together through Europe during WW2. I would give that a shot. That's the only interesting story left to tell and it's not worth it unless it's done in spectacular fashion. [Reply]
Originally Posted by listopencil:
If, and only if, there was a terrific script and a few great actors with a talented director/producer combo that all lined up to do a movie about Rick and Capt. Renault having ridiculous adventures together through Europe during WW2. I would give that a shot. That's the only interesting story left to tell and it's not worth it unless it's done in spectacular fashion.
Fuck it I'm in for that. I'm a total Stan for John Hamm though. [Reply]
